Keritot

GEMARA. May we infer that R. Meir holds that a prohibition may take hold of something already prohibited?1 — [No,] although he may hold that a prohibition cannot take hold where another prohibition exists, he holds that a prohibition that is more comprehensive2 or more extensive3 can take hold [of an already existing prohibition]. To a clean person only heleb is prohibited; when he becomes unclean, since the other parts [of the animal] become forbidden to him, this more comprehensive prohibition embraces also heleb. Then heleb is forbidden for consumption only; when consecrated, since it becomes prohibited for all use, this more extensive prohibition takes hold of heleb. It is still, then, forbidden to laymen only but not for the altar;4 when it becomes nothar, since it becomes forbidden also for the altar, this more extensive prohibition applies also in respect of laymen. Again, if it occurred on the Day of Atonement, since there is added an injunction which is more comprehensive in that it applies also to common food, it applies also to the things dedicated to the altar. But then why not instance five sin-offerings, namely when he ate an olive-size of piggul?5 — He speaks of one animal and not of two, and the meat of one and the same animal cannot be nothar and piggul at the same time.6 But why not? Is it not possible where, e.g., a limb of piggul was [wrongly] offered upon the altar, in which case its disqualification of piggul is lifted,7 and it can thus become nothar, as ‘Ulla said: If the fistful of an offering, rendered piggul, has been offered upon the altar its piggul disqualification ceases, and it may then become nothar?8 — He speaks of one limb and not of two limbs, and one and the same limb cannot be nothar and piggul at the same time. But why not? Is it not possible where, e.g., a limb of piggul was offered upon the altar, partly resting upon the altar and partly protruding,9 so that the portion [which rested] upon the altar loses its piggul disqualification and may become nothar, in accordance with ‘Ulla, who said: ‘If the fistful of an offering, rendered piggul, has been offered upon the altar its disqualification ceases, and it may become nothar?’ — He replied: It is not possible, for if the major portion rests upon the altar, the whole is reckoned as being on the altar; if the major portion is protruding, the whole is reckoned as being outside. But then you could decide therefrom10 the query of Rami son of Hama as to whether one goes by the majority in regard to sacrificial limbs or not!11 — He speaks of one olive-size and not of two.12 But is this indeed so? Does he not deal with the Day of Atonement, where the requisite standard quantity is the size of a date, and a date corresponds to two olive-sizes? — Said R. Zera: He ate of a kidney together with the heleb attached thereto.13 R. Papa said: He supplemented the heleb with dates.14 R. Adda son of Aha indeed reads [in the Mishnah] ‘five sin-offerings’ and explains it [as dealing with the case] where he ate an olive-size of piggul,15 rejecting the other explanations given. But then why not state six sin-offerings’, and explain it [as dealing with the case] where he ate in addition an olive-size of blood? — [The Mishnah] speaks of one act of eating and not of two, and the Rabbis have calculated that the gullet cannot hold more than two olive-sizes at a time. R. MEIR SAYS, etc. Why did he not simply state, ‘If he carried it out [of private possession], he is liable16 . . .’; wherefore does he state, IF IT WAS THE SABBATH’? — Said Rafram: This proves that the laws concerning ‘erub17 and transport18 apply to the Sabbath and do not apply to the Day of Atonement.19 How is this proved? Maybe the laws concerning ‘erub and transport apply also to the Day of Atonement, and the Mishnah text is to be understood thus: If it was the Sabbath and he carried it out [of private possession], he is liable by reason of the Sabbath as well as the Day of Atonement!20 — Rather say, If the statement of Rafram was made, it was with reference to the following: It has been taught, And he shall send him away by the hand of an appointed man;21 ‘man’ implies that also a non-priest is qualified; ‘appointed’ implies even if he is unclean and even on the Sabbath;22 ‘appointed’ means designated for it. Now it is here stated: ‘"Appointed" implies even on the Sabbath’, whereupon Rafram remarked, This proves that the laws concerning ‘erub and transport apply to the Sabbath and do not apply to the Day of Atonement. How is this proved? Maybe the scapegoat is an exception, for its whole validity is bound up with the Day of Atonement!23 — The dictum of Rafram is indeed void.24 MISHNAH. ONE MAY BY ONE ACT OF INCESTUOUS CONNECTION BECOME LIABLE TO SIX SIN-OFFERINGS: VIZ., IF ONE HAD INTERCOURSE WITH HIS DAUGHTER.25 HE IS GUILTY OF INCEST WITH HIS DAUGHTER, HIS SISTER, HIS BROTHER'S WIFE, THE WIFE OF HIS FATHER'S BROTHER, AND OF INTERCOURSE WITH A MARRIED WOMAN AND A MENSTRUOUS WOMAN. exemplified in R. Meir's statement where the law of Sabbath takes hold of prohibited food. all events effective with regard to those objects not covered by the original; it is therefore considered of avail also in respect of those articles already prohibited by the original injunction, and an additional offering is prescribed. eating of the prohibited food is punishable while the superadded prohibition law forbids also any benefit to be derived therefrom. The new prohibition is thus at all events effective where use is made of the food other than eating it; it is therefore regarded of avail also in case of eating, and evokes an additional offering. The following discussion expounds the instance of the Mishnah proving that each additional prohibition thereof is either more comprehensive or more extensive than those already existing. the sprinkling of the blood. Once piggul it is disqualified for altar and priest alike and cannot come within the range of nothar. contact with the altar and may become nothar. If one eats therefore a piece of the limb that has become nothar, under the conditions enumerated in the Mishnah and in addition thereto an olive-size of meat of the rest of the same sacrifice, which has remained piggul, one is liable to five sin-offerings. mentioned in the Mishnah, liable to three sin-offerings and a guilt-offering; when followed by an olive-size of the kidney he complements the date-size required for the transgression of the Day of Atonement, which provokes the fourth sin-offering. R. Zera's view is that the Tanna of the Mishnah wishes to confine himself to the eating of one olive-size of heleb, while in the combination of piggul and nothar it would be necessary to assume that two olive-sizes of heleb have been consumed (Rashi). was at any rate but one olive-size of meat. characteristic of the Sabbath only. Atonement. regarding ‘erub and transport. incestuous contact with his own mother. She then married his brother and after the latter's death, his father's brother. She was in addition menstruant at the time of the intercourse. This monstrous and complicated combination has been chosen to exemplify various prohibitions each of which is more comprehensive than the previous.